homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Kerygmania: Does Scripture Change with Time? (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Kerygmania: Does Scripture Change with Time?
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The benefit flows both ways, ToujoursDan - my thanks to you and Tom as well; these discussions always serve to challenge my presuppositions. The Forum is a bit like one of those hermeneutic spirals: I come across a different understanding, I am challenged and changed as a result, so next time I come with better approach, am challenged again...

First Church of Dizzy Readings.

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
pimple

Ship's Irruption
# 10635

 - Posted      Profile for pimple   Email pimple   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Might we continue with this a little further? I think that I'd have considerable difficulty keeping up with the intellectual level of the arguments so far, but they seem to be teasing out stuff that should be useful to the "ordinary" pew-polisher.

If we say that the meaning of the original writers is clear - or "clear enough" and the tenor of the passage seems to be intolerant or cruel to modern eyes, then those who see themselves as "victims" (if the passage is put ino effect) are forced to say "The bible is wrong." I once heard a Dean of Gloucester Cathedral say precisely that, and I agreed with him. But that can hardly fail to be divisive.

Sometimes, scholars tell us that what the author is saying is all in the interpretation. For instance, that God's punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah was for transgressing the rules of hospitality, not for sexual misdemeanours. Or that Paul's order that women should be silent
had a contextual application of which we have no knowledge. Casuistry? Wishful thinking?

Nigel is right about human nature, of course. There have always been bigots. And there have always been saints and philanthropists. And there have possibly always been poets. But how does the Song of Solomon, or the later poetry of Isaiah, illustrate Nigel's - or ToujoursDan's - point? How did the odd collection of sayings in the Gospel of Thomas - or its predecessors - become the structured narratives of the gospels?

I agree that in the pulpit a broadly common interpretation of the biblical writings makes practical common sense. But sermons are chiefly for preaching rather than exegesis - or so I was told.

The two main protagonists above have agreed to differ (for the time being?) but I'd like them or soeone else to go on, with some specific examples illustrating their points. They cannot both be entirely right or entirely wrong, but it would be useful to try to work out where one or the other hits the mark.

[ 02. September 2009, 19:47: Message edited by: pimple ]

--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)

Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
pimple

Ship's Irruption
# 10635

 - Posted      Profile for pimple   Email pimple   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Just to clarify "Casuistry? Wishful thinking?" These are not accusations on my part, but an indication that the second attitude can be divisive, too. Nigel's assertion that we can know
what the original authors meant doesn't mean that we can do without the hard work of teasing those meanings out. But there are people who regard any scholarship as a challenge to their belief that "what the Bible says" is obvious and needs no interpretation.

--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)

Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959

 - Posted      Profile for tclune   Email tclune   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
If we say that the meaning of the original writers is clear - or "clear enough" and the tenor of the passage seems to be intolerant or cruel to modern eyes, then those who see themselves as "victims" (if the passage is put ino effect) are forced to say "The bible is wrong." I once heard a Dean of Gloucester Cathedral say precisely that, and I agreed with him. But that can hardly fail to be divisive.

I know a guy who once said, "I have come not to bring peace, but a sword." I think sometimes we worry too much about "getting along" in the Chruch, and not enough about being remade in the image of Christ.

As I read scriptures, I find that they often contradict other passages of scripture. I don't think that "going down smoothly" is the right paradigm for approaching scriptures.

We need to be discomfited in some of our views, and even when we think that we have gotten it right, we should not be too sure of ourselves. God speaks in a still small voice, and it's very easy to miss what He says.

I often think that the most important thing that we can do for the faithful is to get them to stop being so damned smug, and acknowledge that they may well be trying to follow the Lord of all creaation, but they are still as frail-ly human as everybody else. Breaking down that awful sense of certainty would go a long way to restoring an honest unity of the Church to my way of thinking.

--Tom Clune

--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.

Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
pimple

Ship's Irruption
# 10635

 - Posted      Profile for pimple   Email pimple   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ah, yes. But sometimes I hold close to my heart treasured certainties that tend to make me smug in secret - because I know, I just somehow know, what the faithful couldn't accept in a month of Sundays!

--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)

Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598

 - Posted      Profile for sanityman   Email sanityman   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
We need not pretend that Christians of Philemon's day were really somehow opposed to slavery. We know otherwise and know that our hermeneutic needs to accommodate that unfortunate fact.

I think that it is a real mistake to try to read scripture in a way that ignores its homophobia or makes it some kind of proto-feminist document. Those prejudices are in there. Failing to recognize that requires us to contort our hermeneutic into a pretzel.


and elsewhere

As I read scriptures, I find that they often contradict other passages of scripture. I don't think that "going down smoothly" is the right paradigm for approaching scriptures.

If I may paraphrase what I'm reading from your comments: the Bible does not "say" anything. Individual authors in the canon say things, and sometimes contradict each other. It may be plain what Paul says about subject X, but that does not make it authoritative or binding per se. We should not be afraid to disagree with the biblical authors on subjects like slavery, which are alien to our culture but accepted in the times in which they were writing. Although the Bible does not speak with a unified voice, it may way speak to me when read in the correct way. We should all have humility in the face of this non-objective nature of revealed truth.

Please feel free to correct me if I've misrepresented!

I would agree with pretty much all of the above. We cannot of course be objective in our reading, so the cultural differences that stand out will be those places where the writer's culture seems most at odds with our own. If we then free to downplay what they say, isn't it subordinating the message of the Bible to our own cultural norms? Is the idea of sola scriptura, that the Bible is its own interpreter, untenable?

I suppose I'm just echoing Nigel M's question
quote:
what grounds would you be able to use to justify / validate an interpretation you hear of a text[?]
- Chris.

PS: hope my tenor is appropriate for Keryg. I'm an infrequent visitor, although threads like this make me think I should stop by more often. Kudos to all involved!

--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot

Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959

 - Posted      Profile for tclune   Email tclune   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
We cannot of course be objective in our reading, so the cultural differences that stand out will be those places where the writer's culture seems most at odds with our own. If we then free to downplay what they say, isn't it subordinating the message of the Bible to our own cultural norms? Is the idea of sola scriptura, that the Bible is its own interpreter, untenable?

I suppose I'm just echoing Nigel M's question
quote:
what grounds would you be able to use to justify / validate an interpretation you hear of a text[?]
- Chris.

Your summary is pretty much what I think. I do think that there are interpretations that are more or less true to the way that the passage would have originally been perceived, and such readings require immersing oneself in linguistics, archaeology, history, etc. to try to acquire a broad enough understanding of the cultural context to be able to appreciate the subtleties of an alien culture. I don't think that all knowledge is subjective. Similarly, I think that an interpretation of, say, Romans that takes the entire book into account has a firmer foundation than an interpretation of a single sentence in isolation.

But I also am firmly convinced that, when we approach scriptures with a humble and contrite heart, the Holy Spirit may reveal to us God's will for our lives in a way that may or may not be rigorously reflective of the denotative sense of the passage we were studying at the time. [We may be parting company at this point...] I don't feel the need to justify such revelations to anyone. I'm not even sure that they apply to anyone else -- or, if so, how they do. But I am convinced that when we approach the study of scripture with a reverent attitude, that we may place ourselves in the presence of the Almighty, and that this is not equivalent to what may happen when we read a moving poem or the like.

I know that that is not the sort of thing that empiricists tend to take seriously, and I'm fine with that, but I think that they are impoverishing their lives thereby. As to sola scriptura, I was raised in a church that upheld a mild form of it -- that everything that is necessary for one's salvation can be vetted through the scriptures. But I'm not sure that I quite believe even the "weak" form of this doctrine anymore.

I am firmly convinced that the Bible is one of the holy grounds upon which we may meet the Almighty, but that is as far as I can go with confidence. I think that it is important for us to witness to what we have received in those encounters, and I think that it is entirely appropriate to listen to the critiques of fellow Christians -- especially if they suggest that what I think I have received is at odds with what the great cloud of saints have testified to over the centuries. It is certainly possible to be mistaken. But I don't really feel the need to "justify" what I have been given. That is a bit more rigorous a notion than I think I can support, given how tenuous our contact with the Almighty is in the first place. I hope that is intelligible, even if not convincing.

--Tom Clune

--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.

Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
...I'd like them or soeone else to go on, with some specific examples illustrating their points. They cannot both be entirely right or entirely wrong, but it would be useful to try to work out where one or the other hits the mark.

Looking back, it does rather seem as though this was an either/or discussion – one can have an objective methodological approach, or one can have a personal application, but one cannot possibly have both. As so often, these dichotomies are more apparent than real. I think there are strengths and weaknesses in both views – but I also think Tom was hinting at another good point, that there are more than two ways of seeing this.

I've been wondering how we might best think of this all, because I think it's best to think of interpretation as a moveable point between a few poles – a sliding scale along which we move, rather than distinct points separated from each other. How about this for starters?:

Life is a triangle.

(It's tempting to just stop there and suggest we all meditate on what's happened here today...)

The triangle has three (blimey!) corners: A, B, and C.

Angle A represents readings that are personal, private, meditational;
Angle B represents readings that are public, universal, objective (as near as can be – with the aim of being publicly verifiable);
Angle C represents readings that are local, communal (cultural?), aiming to be relevant to current needs in a specific time and place.

I may be missing an angle or two here, but hopefully it gets things going. Would I be right in saying that while some Christians might gravitate more often than not to one of the angles, generally speaking we tend to float within the triangle, moving from one angle to another as the mood or need arises?

Being conscious of that fact that poor old IconiumBound has been sitting on the bleachers, arms folded, tapping his feet and glancing from time to time at his watch, wondering just what a guy has to do to get an answer round here, I'll try and demonstrate by reference to one of the passages in the OP: Joshua 24.

Angle A: Anita reads the Joshua text because she believes the text has (or should have) relevance to her lifestyle: she wants to know how she should live and believes (or has been told) that Joshua 24 will provide some insight into that. She might approach the text prayerfully, perhaps letting her mind go with the flow rather than actively seeking an application through any conscious process. What interpretation might Anita offer? “I sensed that I was being challenged to go back over my life and remember the key moments where God helped me out. I realised that perhaps I had not been properly grateful to God for all that he had done and that I needed to take the time now to re-commit myself to God and re-evaluate the prominent things in my life right now.”

Angle B: Brian reads the Joshua text because he is a leader in the church and has just been confronted with a leaflet that is doing the rounds among Christians at the behest of a political party that represents itself as a Christian alternative to the rest in politics. The leaflet alleges that Christians are duty bound to reject alliances or accommodations with any non-Christian grouping, to establish the pure Christian faith in the land by routing out unbelief, and to hold allegiance to God alone rather than any man-made institution or constitution. The leaflet refers approvingly to Joshua 24. Brian is not really reading here for a personal, subjective guide for his life. His commitment to this text has been forced upon him and he has to assess the validity of the claims made on the basis of that text. His interpretation? “The argument has been raised on the basis of Joshua 24:14 that Christians have a God-given obligation to commit themselves to the Lord alone and to physically reject anything that conflicts with this. If Christians fail to do this, it is claimed, we will suffer disaster. I agree that verse 14 forms a peak in the narrative and therefore could be said to be a most important and relevant injunction upon believers. However, it is clear from the preceding verses that the national activities of driving out non-believers were undertaken by God alone: his people had no hand in it. I conclude that there is no injunction on Christians to become violently active against non-believers today.”

Angle C: Carolyn reads the passage as a member of a community of women who have suffered domestic abuse. She believes in God and reads to learn more about God, but is suspicious of the tone she comes across so often in the Bible. She reads Joshua 24 and finds herself torn between two emotions: a desire to be committed to the God of Jesus, but also a real fear and raised stress levels when she finds that same God placed in conjunction with violence. Her reading? “I have to balance this passage very firmly with teachings from elsewhere in the bible, especially from the gospel, if I am to find any relevance here at all. I need to strip out the violence, because that has caused me such harm, but I also want to retain the commitment to serve God no matter what.”


Bearing these three approaches in mind, is it fair to say that the approach we take at any given point will be pre-determined by the questions we are asking? In a sense they all have the same starting point: they are committed to the text because they accept it has authority; they believe they may find out more about God – or even that God will provide guidance for them. There are some common assumptions: the text has an author (divine or human) that wishes to speak to us; the text has enough cohesion and coherence to make some sort of sense; and the text should be relevant.

It seems to me that all three readers have this in common: they start from the same base. After that, however, they glide at the text from different directions – in other words, their angle of approach is different. The variant here is the degree or type of pre-determination each brings to the text and the question being asked, or the issue that needs a resolution.

Three different reading approaches – the strengths of each being:

A – caters for the spiritual (whole?) side of humans; forces a personal reflection on how one is doing; stands back from the rather entangled lives in community.

B – provides a grounding for a stable faith; encourages growth in that faith and the ability to think for oneself, rather than relying on the direction given by others (which might be spurious).

C – seeks relevance from the text for life situations here and now; grapples with the culture as it is and with life experiences as they are.

Perhaps the challenge we face is how can move towards one angle without breaking links completely with the other two angles. Balance a personal, universal and relevant reading.

Nigel

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598

 - Posted      Profile for sanityman   Email sanityman   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
I hope that is intelligible, even if not convincing.

Both intelligible and entirely reasonable. How you describe reading the Bible for inspiration chimes with how it seems to be used in practice (in MOTR evangelicalism, anyway). Interestingly, quite a different way from when doing theology, which can cause problems for people like me in bible study groups!

thanks for taking time to write such a lucid summary.

All the best,

- Chris.

--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot

Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
A.Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 15044

 - Posted      Profile for A.Pilgrim   Email A.Pilgrim   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, what a pleasure to find this thread! [Smile] There is certainly a broad range of posts around these message boards. Before reading this thread (or to be more accurate, skimming it and dipping in and out) I waded through the four pages of the thread started by Anglican2009 about the Chapter and Worse poll, which had been transferred to the Hell forum. [Help]

I’m not sure that I can contribute at the same level of erudition as the main protagonists (or should that be contributors?) above, but I’d like to add a few thoughts.

I think that in theory, authorial intention should be given a high status when approaching the texts of the Bible. To what extent this is achievable in practice, bearing in mind the distance of time, culture, and language between us as readers and the authors, is perhaps one of the main themes of this thread. (Please note that in using the term ‘authors’ I am not necessarily denying the divine inspiration of the Bible. Whatever one believes about inspiration, the expression of that inspiration was in a specific historical context and language.) So I reckon that the first task when approaching a biblical passage is to try to understand it in the historical context. (Forgive me if I’m making a statement of the blindingly obvious here.) To do this requires extra-biblical information, so I’m afraid that although I was brought up with the principle of sola scriptura I no longer think that it is tenable. Not least in view of the task of trying to determine the referents and semantic domains of the words used in the original languages. Which requires an in-depth understanding of the social and linguistic context of the author. To what extent that is achievable in view of the hazards of historical study is certainly a tough subject for debate.

Does this change over time? Well, perhaps the understanding that can be gained is refined and amended as we understand more about the historical context of the original text, and therefore perhaps gain a more accurate understanding of authorial intent. I vaguely remember that Tom Wright has written along these lines in his book: Paul: Fresh perspectives / N T Wright (London: SPCK,2005) But I reckon that the original authorial intention does not change over time.

I also think that an essential requirement for understanding a Biblical passage is the desire in the heart (mind/will/emotion) of the reader to accept and submit to it as the Word of God – which allows the Holy Spirit to influence the understanding gained. (And yes, even the difficult and ‘unacceptable’ bits as some forum members would describe them.)

I don’t think that we have to choose either learned scholarship or spiritual enlightenment – we need both.

In re-reading some of the recent posts I’ve realised that I’ve repeated several of the points already made by Tom Clune, so I’m not sure how much I’ve progressed the debate. But at least it shows that there’s someone else who agrees with the points made.
[Smile]

Posts: 434 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009  |  IP: Logged
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598

 - Posted      Profile for sanityman   Email sanityman   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
Well, what a pleasure to find this thread! [Smile]

Welcome to the ship, A.Pilgrim! Glad you started here, not Hell. There's an official welcome thread in All Saints, if you haven't already found it: do drop in and say hello.

- Chris.

--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot

Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Welcome to the Ship and Kerygmania, A.Pilgrim! Your journey from Hell to Kerygmania is, I suppose, to travel from the ridiculous to the sublime!

The subject matter of this thread is quite vast and you have pulled out another aspect that hasn't really been touched on yet: the role of the divine author; any 'authorial meaning' that attaches to that role, and the relationship between God as divine author and the human authors of the biblical texts.

I would agree with you that – assuming there such a thing as authorial intention we can get at – that it is unchangeable through time. What changes is the way we apply the text, bounded by that meaning, to our times. There is an argument that if are dealing with two types of author (one divine and one human), then perhaps it matters not what the human author meant, we only need to find out what God meant – and that might be something completely different. It's tricky finding out what God meant in a passage if all we have to go on is the expression of the human author, but I suppose there might be scope for saying that God's meaning is to be found at the canon level – where all the texts come together and become 'more than the sum of the parts'.

The tough part, I find, is trying to marry the 'spiritual' with the 'scholarship' at the same time. It feels trying to push together magnets of similar poles. I can be either spiritual (angle A in my last post) or scholarly about a text (angle B), but the angle of approach is so different that its tricky to be spiritually scholastic about a text (or scholarly spiritual – not sure which way round is best...).

Ah, well; “We're having an epiphany” said the Regius Professor of Textual Criticism as he rugby-tackled the Dean of Theology over his approach to Matt. 5:11.

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
...how does the Song of Solomon, or the later poetry of Isaiah, illustrate Nigel's - or ToujoursDan's - point?

ToujourDan made the point about the variety of genres in the bible. Good little exegetes are taught to pay attention to genre when they come to a text so that do not misread aspects of human language. Poetry, I think, is that hardest form of language to be 'critical' at, i.e., it's harder to identify human authorial meaning in poetry than it is in, say, Paul's letters. No doubt this factor in poetry lay behind the many punch-ups between literary critics in the past century - should a poem be read critically or aesthetically?

Practically speaking, though, poetry is also hard to build theology on. Those passages that cause the most division and angst in Christianity come more from the prosaic end of the linguistic spectrum, so perhaps the issue of authorial intention is moot at the poetic end.

Having said that, however, language is not really an either/or here, is it? We are not either poetic or prosaic; in our language use we are more or less prosaic, more or less poetic. That last clause was a bit poetic! If this is the case, then rather than seeking to divide the bible into neat little genres boxes, perhaps a more fruitful way to approach the texts is to place them along a three-dimensional spectrum in the triangle model: A, B, C, and fit it to the model in my earlier post.

Angle A takes the the more poetic and figurative sections of texts;
Angle B takes the more prosaic texts;
Angle C - well I'm going to dump everything from the middle of the spectrum, those 'genres' that people can't agree on - e.g., the Gospels.

At the extreme end of Angle B lie railway timetables. Pure impartation of information with no frills needed; strict "I say to You..." type of language. Much from Paul's letters swim towards this angle.

At the extreme end of Angle A we find the likes of John Cage's rendition of 4' 33". Song of Songs and many parts of the Psalms lie towards this angle. More Affective use of language here, designed to draw expression out of the hearer/reader. The author and intended audience pretty much disappear from view - "Someone says..." type of language.

Then there are the Gospels (or parts thereof). Angle C is not first person (angle B), but neither is it anonymous (angle A). It is more "He (or she) says to You..." type of language; third person author.

Authorial Intention is up close and personal in Angle B, which is, I think, why theology is easier to find in that part of the spectrum. The author starts to back away in angle C - and theology becomes harder to tie down. We lose the author pretty much in angle A, and theology is blown to the wind.

Not sure where that leaves us! Personal preference? My own thought is that even in angle A it is still possible to talk about authorial intention, though harder identify. Different criteria apply.

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
A.Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 15044

 - Posted      Profile for A.Pilgrim   Email A.Pilgrim   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks for the welcome, Chris & Nigel. [Smile]

I did compose a substantial post as my next contribution to this thread, but then decided to re-read the first page of the thread, and found that the points I had made had been covered already by different contributors. I must go through the arguments already made and cogitate deeply so as to say something that takes the debate further. I just don't have the time at the moment!

But in re-reading the very first post (that's the OP in forum jargon?) I realised that it was about a subject that has been nagging in my mind for years.

IB was commenting on whether a verse from the book of Judges had the same validity of application to today as a verse from Ephesians or the gospel of John. The essential point is that I suspect that the Old Testament does not have the same applicability to today that the New Testament does, because it relates (or the great majority of it does) to the Old Covenant which God established with Abraham, which has been superseded by the New Covenant established by Jesus. So it's not so much that scripture changes over time, but that a dramatic and revolutionary change happened at the change from the Old to the New Covenants, which changes the way that scripture is applied before and after Christ.

How that suggestion could be applied and developed is a big, big debate, and I don't want to take this thread off topic (or at least the way that it has developed up to now), so I might start a new thread on this subject. But this proposition that I've outlined has enormous implications for many of the debates on this entire debating site - including many of the 'Chapter and Worse' proposals.

I regret that I don't have time to explain further, but I hope to return when I've got some spare time. [Smile]

Posts: 434 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009  |  IP: Logged
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754

 - Posted      Profile for IconiumBound   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Welcome aboard Pilgrim. You have brought up what I asked in my OP.
quote:
So it's not so much that scripture changes over time, but that a dramatic and revolutionary change happened at the change from the Old to the New Covenants, which changes the way that scripture is applied before and after Christ.
But I don't agree that the Hebrew Scriptures are obsolete as you imply, if I read you right. I'm sure Jesus wouldn't accept that either.

What I was trying to point out was that IF we can't accept something from the OT that doesn't square with our present cultural mores then why not apply the same to the NT? As was the case in the reading from Ephesians. And as might be done with John should there come a time when Jesus' words of consecration would be seen as merely metaphorical; "He really didn't mean this should be sacramentalized".

"It'll never happen!" you masy say. but if we have already taken some verses lightly, why not?

Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I suppose, practically speaking, we are all 'scissors' Christians to a greater or lesser extent even when it comes to the NT. There are passages that we don't know what to do with, or that we just cannot feel to be relevant, and so we have to ignore, cut out, explain away or, as you suggest, offer an alternative more spiritual/symbolic meaning.

Re: the John passage, some interpreters argue that Jesus meant the words he spoke to be taken figuratively and that a sacramental layer was added later.

Whichever way it goes, though, your point is a good challenge. Before we can read a passage figuratively, should the argument be that we need to be able to demonstrate that the language used in that passage's context is not literal (in the sense of being non-figurative)?

If that is what we should be doing, what criteria should we use to demonstrate just that? I would start a list with consideration of the following aspects:

[1] Genre; but would want to qualify that with the observation that genre is only a starting point: e.g., a poem can contain literal language, so labelling a passage 'poetry' could be counter-productive. Something more nuanced is needed.

[2] Co-text is important; how the words fit together with their surrounding words in that passage.

[3] Where the passage's unit begins and ends; which starts a consideration of the context.

[4] Flow of thought; depending on the genre, how the argument proceeds, or the language flows, or the plot develops...

[5] Language use; e.g., is the author prone to using figurative expressions?

[6] For biblical passages, direct quotes from, paraphrases, and allusions to earlier passages. This might offer a clue as to whether an author intended literal or figurative language use.

[7] The perfect number, so this criterion must be "God told me".

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
A.Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 15044

 - Posted      Profile for A.Pilgrim   Email A.Pilgrim   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
IB, sorry I haven't had time to get back to the OT/NT subject, but I hope to soon. I'm not ignoring your post. [Smile]
Posts: 434 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009  |  IP: Logged
A.Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 15044

 - Posted      Profile for A.Pilgrim   Email A.Pilgrim   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I’ve just gone back and read the OP more carefully, and I think that I’ve not quite understood the exact point being made in it when composing my previous replies. Confusion reigns! IconiumBound asked:
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
...
If we can accept this allowance for interpreting this passage, why not the passage of Joshua giving a fire and brimstone sermon to the Israelites?
...

Well, quite so. And my position would be that, no, we can’t accept this allowance for interpreting this passage. Mainly because IMO the interpretation from the commentary quoted turns the argument of the passage in Ephesians upside down and back-to-front* – and if we accepted that amount of allowance there, one could interpret any Biblical passage any way one liked.

It’s not that the Bible needs reinterpreting in each generation or culture, it needs re-applying . What can change with time is how specific instructions are relevant or applicable to each period or people. (For example, the different applicability of OT laws in NT times – see other thread.) That’s the theory, anyway – I accept that putting this into practice can be tough.

But there’s another factor. The practice of reinterpretation of biblical passages and verses is often done by different people in different times so as to avoid having to apply them – because people will often do as much dodging and turning and twisting and diving as they can to avoid having to admit the challenge and authority that God’s Word has over them. As, IMO, the commentator quoted has done.

I don’t give any credence to the ‘reader-response’ theory that says that meaning only appears when a reader engages with a text, and varies from reader to reader. It’s a very post-modern theory, with the ethos that nothing is certain or definite, or can be known for sure, but everything is subjective. As I mentioned before, authorial intention is primary, and communication can only take place between author and reader when the reader seeks to find the meaning of the authors words. It isn’t difficult – we’re doing it right now, with me writing this post, and you the reader, reading the words I’ve used. The amazing thing is that God himself wishes to communicate with his created beings, and has spoken. And some people will do anything they can to avoid listening.

I’m not going to go into the OT/NT subject here, I think I’ll start a new thread on it, despite IB’s most recent post saying that this was what was in mind. I don’t think that it’s in the theme of how this thread has developed up to now. [Smile]

*Full explanation omitted to reduce size of post.

Posts: 434 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009  |  IP: Logged
Pooks
Shipmate
# 11425

 - Posted      Profile for Pooks     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A.Pilgrim, you speak music to my ear. [Overused]

Welcome to the Ship.

Posts: 1547 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
A.Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 15044

 - Posted      Profile for A.Pilgrim   Email A.Pilgrim   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks for the welcome, Pooks. [Smile]

By the way, I like your sig. - definitely one to remember. [Big Grin]

(OK, back on topic...)

Posts: 434 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools